General
Column
Game Summary
Match summary:
Date: 2019-10-27
League: Friendlies Echidnas 2019
Teams: Echidnas Women’s 2019
vs
Short Men 2019
Result: 1-4 (7-25, 12-25, 13-25, 15-25, 25-19)
Duration: unknownPlayers
| Echidnas | # |
|---|---|
| Alice Agnew | . |
| Lucy Allwright | . |
| Lidya Casimaty | . |
| Rebecca Flinn | . |
| Viivi Hokinen | . |
| Bine Jansen | . |
| Misha Masuda | . |
| Thelma Nation | . |
| Emilie Robles | . |
| Opposition | # |
|---|---|
| Scott Donovan | 1 |
| Mark Thomas | 2 |
| Harrison Tadd | 3 |
| Josh Probert | 4 |
| Sebastien Mancini | 5 |
| Masayuki Tatsumi | 6 |
| Triin Thorpe | 7 |
Full Statistics
STARTERS | POINTS | RECEPTION | SERVE | ATTACK | BLOCK | SET | DIG | ||||||||||||||||||||||
# | Player | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Pts | BP | Net | Err | Ave | Exc% | Tot | Ace | Err | Tot | Tot | Kill | Blocked | Err | Freeball | Kill% | Kill block | Err | Ass | Err | Good | Err | |
Echidnas Women’s 2019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Viivi Hokinen | 3 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 1 | -3 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 22 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 18 | 1 | |||||||||||
Misha Masuda | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 5 | -2 | 6 | 1.37 | 17 | 35 | 2 | 1 | 13 | 30 | 5 | 3 | 12 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 7 | ||||||
Rebecca Flinn | 6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 13 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 3 | 16 | 25 | 7 | 1 | 8 | 28 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
Alice Agnew | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | -10 | 1 | 1.00 | 5 | 3 | 9 | 30 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 17 | 1 | 2 | 4 | ||||||||
Emilie Robles | L | L | L | L | L | -8 | 3 | 2.17 | 52 | 29 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 13 | 4 | |||||||||||||
Thelma Nation | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | -9 | 2.00 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 15 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 20 | 25 | 2 | 8 | 4 | ||||||||
Bine Jansen | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 4 | -10 | 4 | 1.59 | 19 | 32 | 1 | 3 | 12 | 52 | 8 | 3 | 12 | 9 | 15 | 1 | 7 | ||||||
Total | 43 | 24 | -33 | 14 | 1.66 | 26 | 102 | 10 | 18 | 72 | 169 | 30 | 5 | 29 | 41 | 18 | 3 | 28 | 3 | 38 | 12 | ||||||||
Short Men 2019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total | 60 | 42 | 31 | 14 | 17 | 118 | 50 | 37 | 2 | 11 | 1 | 74 | 9 | 35 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
GAME | POINTS | RECEPTION | SERVE | ATTACK | BLOCK | SET | DIG | ||||||||||||||||
Set | Pts | BP | Net | Err | Ave | Exc% | Tot | Ace | Err | Tot | Tot | Kill | Blocked | Err | Freeball | Kill% | Kill block | Err | Ass | Err | Good | Err | |
1 | 4 | -13 | 5 | 1.30 | 13 | 23 | 3 | 7 | 28 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 14 | 5 | 6 | 4 | |||||||
2 | 6 | 3 | -8 | 1 | 1.67 | 19 | 21 | 2 | 12 | 43 | 4 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 4 | 10 | 3 | |||||
3 | 7 | 3 | -11 | 5 | 1.68 | 27 | 22 | 1 | 6 | 14 | 22 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 23 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
4 | 9 | 5 | -7 | 2 | 1.90 | 43 | 21 | 1 | 5 | 14 | 40 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 15 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 11 | 4 | ||
5 | 17 | 13 | 6 | 1 | 1.80 | 33 | 15 | 6 | 4 | 25 | 36 | 11 | 2 | 5 | 10 | 31 | 8 | 1 | 10 | ||||
GAME | POINTS | RECEPTION | SERVE | ATTACK | BLOCK | SET | DIG | ||||||||||||||||
Rotation | Pts | BP | Net | Err | Ave | Exc% | Tot | Ace | Err | Tot | Tot | Kill | Blocked | Err | Freeball | Kill% | Kill block | Err | Ass | Err | Good | Err | |
1 | 7 | 7 | -10 | 4 | 1.56 | 26 | 27 | 1 | 5 | 15 | 44 | 4 | 6 | 14 | 9 | 2 | 4 | 12 | 2 | ||||
2 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1.60 | 20 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 11 | 18 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 33 | 5 | 1 | ||||||
3 | 8 | 4 | -5 | 2 | 1.64 | 36 | 14 | 2 | 3 | 11 | 29 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 21 | 5 | 1 | 9 | 3 | ||||
4 | 6 | -4 | 2 | 1.73 | 27 | 15 | 3 | 9 | 20 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 30 | 6 | 4 | ||||||||
5 | 6 | 3 | -13 | 4 | 1.15 | 5 | 20 | 3 | 4 | 12 | 25 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 4 | |||
6 | 7 | 4 | -4 | 2.44 | 50 | 16 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 33 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 18 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 3 | |||||
| Skill | Interpretation | Target | Achieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| Serve | Ace to Error ratio | 0.66 | 0.56 |
| Passing | Average number of choices by setter | 2.20 | 1.66 |
| Spiking | Kill efficiency | 22.50 | 18.00 |
| Digging | on hard driven balls per set | 6.00 | 7.60 |
| Blocking | Kill blocks per set | 2.00 | 0.60 |
The KPIs are still not achieved, but the game was largely non homogeneous. The 2 first sets were really difficult, with poor reception quality, low hitting efficiency, and very poor serving (Ace to Error ratio way too low). The however consistently improved as we played, and the figures for the final set are quite satisfactory.
Sideout Report
General sideout
We do have some trouble siding out, this is quite obvious. The fact that we score almost as much on low quality pass as on high quality pass indicates that we need to work on our hitting efficiency (even so we are facing a single block 46% of the time, we do not score as efficiently as we should in this context).
Pass quality
| Reception outcome/Point outcome | Point won | Point lost | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Error | 0% (0) | 100% (14) | 100% (14) |
| Negative/poor pass | 26% (9) | 74% (25) | 100% (34) |
| OK, no first tempo possible | 33% (9) | 67% (18) | 100% (27) |
| Perfect/positive pass | 37% (10) | 63% (17) | 100% (27) |
| Total | 27% (28) | 73% (74) | 100% (102) |
There is a slight better chance of winning the chance when we pass well (37-33-26). We could aim for higher efficiency in the ideal scenario. This re-enforces the message communicated above.
Transition vs Serve Receive
| attack_tempo/evaluation | Kill | In play | Blocked | Error | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quick ball | 5% (4) | 12% (10) | 2% (2) | 4% (3) | 23% (19) |
| Fast ball | 2% (2) | 20% (16) | 1% (1) | 9% (7) | 32% (26) |
| High ball | 0% (0) | 9% (7) | 0% (0) | 1% (1) | 10% (8) |
| Freeball or unclassified | 1% (1) | 32% (26) | 0% (0) | 1% (1) | 35% (28) |
| Total | 9% (7) | 73% (59) | 4% (3) | 15% (12) | 100% (81) |
| attack_tempo/evaluation | Kill | In play | Blocked | Error | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quick ball | 5% (4) | 6% (5) | 0% (0) | 1% (1) | 11% (10) |
| Fast ball | 11% (10) | 11% (10) | 1% (1) | 8% (7) | 32% (28) |
| High ball | 6% (5) | 16% (14) | 1% (1) | 2% (2) | 25% (22) |
| Freeball or unclassified | 5% (4) | 19% (17) | 0% (0) | 8% (7) | 32% (28) |
| Total | 26% (23) | 52% (46) | 2% (2) | 19% (17) | 100% (88) |
The main message here is that the distribution of attack tempos is quite appropriate. The ratio of freeballs on the other hand is too important. Maybe we could adjust our footwork, or give ourselves more time to make sure we have a chance to hit the ball. Some setter/hitter adjustments are probably required too.
Technical Aspect
Column
Serving report
Serve summary
| evaluation/skill_type | Float serve | Jump serve | Jump-float serve | Topspin serve | Unknown serve type | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ace | 17% (8) | 0% (0) | 17% (2) | 0% (0) | 0% (0) | 14% (10) |
| Positive, opponent some attack | 19% (9) | 100% (1) | 42% (5) | 0% (0) | 40% (4) | 26% (19) |
| OK, no first tempo possible | 21% (10) | 0% (0) | 0% (0) | 0% (0) | 10% (1) | 15% (11) |
| Negative, opponent free attack | 11% (5) | 0% (0) | 33% (4) | 0% (0) | 50% (5) | 19% (14) |
| Error | 32% (15) | 0% (0) | 8% (1) | 100% (2) | 0% (0) | 25% (18) |
| Total | 100% (47) | 100% (1) | 100% (12) | 100% (2) | 100% (10) | 100% (72) |
The jump float serve is the one which seems to provide the better serve efficiency. We will keep pushing in that direction at training.
Serve directions
Setting report
| attack_tempo/Setter position | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quick ball | 9% (4) | 31% (5) | 25% (7) | 25% (5) | 8% (2) | 10% (3) | 16% (26) |
| Fast ball | 30% (13) | 25% (4) | 32% (9) | 25% (5) | 29% (7) | 52% (16) | 33% (54) |
| High ball | 26% (11) | 13% (2) | 21% (6) | 25% (5) | 17% (4) | 6% (2) | 19% (30) |
| Freeball or unclassified | 35% (15) | 31% (5) | 21% (6) | 25% (5) | 46% (11) | 32% (10) | 32% (52) |
| Total | 100% (43) | 100% (16) | 100% (28) | 100% (20) | 100% (24) | 100% (31) | 100% (162) |
| attack_tempo/num_players | No block | 1 player block | 2 player block | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quick ball | 0% (0) | 58% (15) | 42% (11) | 100% (26) |
| Fast ball | 7% (4) | 43% (23) | 50% (27) | 100% (54) |
| High ball | 23% (7) | 40% (12) | 37% (11) | 100% (30) |
| Freeball or unclassified | 45% (5) | 55% (6) | 0% (0) | 100% (11) |
| Total | 13% (16) | 46% (56) | 40% (49) | 100% (121) |
Low use of middle players when the setter is front court. Adjustment required between the setter and the middle hitters. A few No-block by the opoosition team, meaning they made the choice not to block (in particular on high balls). They identified our hitting weakness, and exploited it. This can be addressed by hitting close to lines, and in seams between defenders.
Hitting report
Hitting type summary
| attack_tempo | Attack type | Kill | In play | Blocked | Error |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quick ball | A Quick | 2 | 1 | . | 1 |
| B Quick | . | . | 1 | . | |
| Back-one | 2 | 3 | . | 3 | |
| Slide | 4 | 9 | . | . | |
| Fast ball | 6 (to position 2) | 4 | 7 | . | 5 |
| Black (or 11) | 5 | 16 | 2 | 6 | |
| C or D (backcourt) | 1 | 1 | . | . | |
| Pipe | 2 | 2 | . | 3 | |
| High ball | 10 (backcourt) | . | 1 | . | . |
| 4 (to position 4) | 5 | 16 | . | 3 | |
| 5 (to position 2) | . | 3 | 1 | . | |
| Release Pipe | . | 1 | . | . | |
| Unclassified | 2 | 2 | . | . | |
| Other attack | 1 | 2 | . | 1 | |
| Setter dump | 1 | 2 | . | . |
Hitting efficiency against block
| num_players | Quick ball | Fast ball | High ball | Unclassified |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No block | . | 25.0 | 14.3 | 80 |
| 1 player block | 26.7 | 21.7 | 25.0 | 0 |
| 2 player block | 36.4 | 22.2 | 9.1 | . |
Hitting directions
Hit locations
Compared to the first game, much more zones have been reached. Which translated in a better hitting efficiency. We can probably aim for deeper corners, and insist in hitting more lines, especially from 4, when that is an option. A few more tips as well. Some real improvement in the angles chosen by the hitters, accross the board.
Tactical Aspect
Column
Offense System report
Set choice
Attack choice
| Phase/Hit type | Hard spike | Spike off the block | Soft spike/topspin | 3110 | Freeball over | Setter tip | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reception | 50.6% (41) | 7.4% (6) | 16.0% (13) | 0.0% (0) | 24.7% (20) | 1.2% (1) | 100.0% (81) |
| Transition | 37.5% (33) | 8.0% (7) | 27.3% (24) | 1.1% (1) | 23.9% (21) | 2.3% (2) | 100.0% (88) |
| Total | 43.8% (74) | 7.7% (13) | 21.9% (37) | 0.6% (1) | 24.3% (41) | 1.8% (3) | 100.0% (169) |
Distribution is well balanced in reception, less so in transition. The opposite (2 and 9) needs to make herself available to balance the offense to the two ends of the net. Given the height of the block, on 7% of hits being played off the block is not really much. We can try to take advantage of the block, by hitting its edges for example.
Defense System report
Opposition kills
Defensive responsibilities
Comments
The defense gaps displayed in these plots are probably the result of not being used to balls being driven that fast to us. We are definitely getting better, but there is room for improvement especially when the opposition hit is coming from 4.